What we owe the author: rethinking editorial peer review

Area of Science:

• Scholarly publishing
• Scientific communication
• Research integrity

Background:

• Editorial peer review is crucial for scientific advancement.
• Concerns about peer review misconduct necessitate ethical guidelines.
• Existing practices lack comprehensive ethical frameworks for reviewers.

Purpose of the Study:

• To advocate for a code of ethics for editorial peer reviewers.
• To outline ethical guidelines for reviewers, disciplines, and authors.
• To discuss the practical application of beneficence and impartiality in peer review.

Main Methods:

• Literature review on ethical standards in peer review.
• Analysis of existing codes of conduct (if any).
• Conceptual discussion of ethical principles.

Main Results:

• A proposed code of ethics should encompass broader societal and disciplinary considerations.
• Reviewers have a specific duty to act with beneficence and impartiality.
• Practical strategies for implementing these ethical concepts are explored.

Conclusions:

• Establishing a code of ethics is vital for maintaining trust and integrity in scientific publishing.
• Ethical peer review practices benefit authors, journals, and the scientific community.
• The principles of beneficence and impartiality are foundational for responsible peer review.